I am new to Ruby. I am confused by some code that I am reading here:
http://hawkins.io/2012/03/defining_plugins_gems_railties_and_engines/
This is the code:
module Cashier
class Railtie < ::Rails::Railtie
config.cashier = Cashier
initializer "cashier.active_support.cache.instrumentation"
ActiveSupport::Cache::Store.instrument = true
end
end
end
I am surprised by this line, which would not be allowed in most languages:
config.cashier = Cashier
So I am inside the definition of the module Cashier, and yet I also get to instantiate an instance of the module Cashier and use it here? What is going on this line? How can I assign Cashier when I'm inside of the code that defines what Cashier is? In Java, I don't think I've ever instantiated a class inside the definition of the class.
You aren't instantiating Cashier here (you can't create instances of modules in Ruby anyhow); you're just referencing the Cashier constant, which refers to an instance of Module, which is already defined by the time you reach this line.
Ruby creates an empty Module instance and assigns it to the Foo constant by virtue of module Foo. The module body definition can be viewed as reopening the empty module and adding additional functionality to it. Ruby doesn't require the full module definition in order to "finalize" a module and assign it to a constant; it's created and assigned before the body definition is even considered.
That is, the code:
module Foo
puts Foo.object_id
end
is functionally equivalent to:
# Create a new Module instance and assign it to the Foo constant
Foo = Module.new
# Reopen the Module instance assigned to the constant Foo for modification
module Foo
# Do stuff in here to add functionality to the Foo module
# Since Foo is already defined, we can get its object_id.
puts Foo.object_id
end
This certainly doesn't make sense coming from a compiled language standpoint (after all, how do you know what Cashier is if you haven't finished its definition yet?), but Ruby's interpreted nature means that it tends to treat things like module and class definitions a bit more loosely, which is what is permitting this behavior.
Related
I was having trouble understanding an error while unit testing my module, which is a mixin.
Suppose the mixin to be tested is module A:
require 'path/b'
module A
def methodA()
puts methodB.attr1
end
end
And it depends on another mixin B which was defined in a file at path/b.rb
module B
def methodB
return someObject #that has property 'attr1'
end
end
Now, we have a class to unit test module A
require 'path/moduleA'
class TestA
include Path::moduleA
end
describe 'test moduleA.methodA'
it 'does something'
testObject = TestA.new
testObject.methodA()
expect(....)
end
end
I get following error on running the rspec test
NameError:
undefined local variable or method `methodB' for #<TestA:0x00007f77a03db9a8>
I am able to resolve it by one of following ways:
including module B in module A
including module B in class TestA
Questions
I am not clear why include is required to get access to methodB in
module A and class TestA when 'require' was already added in module A.
My intention is to use methods of module B in module A, but not let users of module A access module B methods automatically.
resolution 1 above gives users of A, access to B's methods
resolution 2 forces users of A (user -> the unit test class in this example) to include A's dependency B directly, even though user is only interested in accessing A's methods.
Hence, both resolutions don't achieve what I want. Is there a way to achieve it?
I'm new to Ruby so may be it doesn't support this. I'm from Java background where I would model A and B as two classes, make an instance of B as field of A, then expose A's own public methods to users of A. But since they are mixins, I need to use modules in ruby.
Just to be very explicit: require / require_relative / load and include / extend / prepend have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with each other.
The former three simply run a Ruby file. That's it. That is all they do. They differ in how and where they search for the file, but after they found the file, they don't do anything else than just execute it.
The latter three add a module to the ancestor chain. include essentially makes the module the superclass, extend is really the same as singleton_class.include (i.e. makes the module the superclass of the singleton class), and prepend inserts the module at the beginning of the ancestor's chain, i.e. actually before the class that it is prepended to.
require just tells ruby to read / load the code inside the ruby file. In this case it will just define the module. However in order for code inside a module to be included inside another module or class, you must include it inside the module or class. So you should just as you mentioned do:
require 'path/b'
module A
include B
def methodA()
puts methodB.attr1
end
end
You should not need to change your test with this since module A already includes module B. However this is not a very good OOP design pattern here. But hopefully you understand why now.
After more googling, I found the answer to my 2nd question using suggestion from:
https://makandracards.com/makandra/977-calling-selected-methods-of-a-module-from-another-module
so basically i did:
require 'path/b'
module A
module B_RequiredMethods
include Path::B
module_function :methodB
end
def methodA
puts B_RequiredMethods.methodB.attr1
end
end
In my case, B_RequiredMethods could be named properly to represent the method of B which would be exposed by it. Ideally, I would make those methods class level methods of B, but it is managed by some other team.
I am trying to understand concepts of including or inheriting a module inside a class. Whenever I read i get new ways to include or inherit a module inside a class. So just want to know how many ways are there. Here are the examples I am sharing:
Example 1
module TimeExtensions
refine Fixnum do
def minutes; self * 60; end
end
end
class MyApp
using TimeExtensions
def initialize
p 2.minutes
end
end
Example 2
VAL = 'Global'
module Foo
VAL = 'Foo Local'
class Bar
def value1
VAL
end
end
end
class Foo::Bar
def value2
VAL
end
end
Example 3
module Foo
def foo
puts 'heyyyyoooo!'
end
end
class Bar
include Foo
end
Out of the three, only the last one includes a module into the class. That is, it adds the methods from the module to the class.
The first one is called refinement. If instead of refining Fixnum you just added a #minutes method to it, Fixnum will have that method for everyone that uses it, as long as your code is loaded. This might cause conflicts with other implementations of the same method (for example active record's #minutes) and leads to obscure, hard to debug issues. Instead, you can refine the Fixnum class and it will have that method only in the scope where you added the refinement with using.
It has some issues and it's not very widely used. But for the purposes of this question, the differences between including a module and using a refinement are:
including will add methods to the class where you do the inclusion, while refinements make other classes behave differently in the context where they are used
including is semantical (all objects will have the new included methods), while refinements are lexical (after you close the class, if you reopen it again, you won't see the refined methods)
The second one is scoping the class inside the module. This doesn't add methods anywhere. It is just due to the way constants are searched that if the constant (in this case VAL) isn't found in the current class, it is searched further up the tree. It's not that simple actually, if you want more details, you can read here.
Suppose I have the following:
module MyModule
module SubModule
Var = 'this is a constant'
var = 'this is not a constant'
def hello_world
return 'hello world!'
end
end
end
In the same file, I can only seem to access MyModule::SubModule::Var, but not any the constant or the method. If I now create a class and include these modules in different ways, I get additional strange behavior:
class MyClass
include MyModule
def initialize()
puts SubModule::Var
end
def self.cool_method
puts SubModule::Var
end
end
In this case, I can again only access Var, but not the other two. SubModule::var and SubModule::hello_world do not work. Finally:
class MyClass
include MyModule::SubModule
def initialize()
puts Var
puts hello_world
end
def self.cool_method
puts Var
puts hello_world
end
end
In this case, I can now access both Var and the method hello_world but not var, and, the weirdest thing, is that hello_world appears to have become an instance method! That is, the call to hello_world in initialize works, but the one in self.cool_method doesn't. This is pretty strange, considering that Var seems to have been included as a class variable, since outside the class, I must access them like so:
MyClass::Var
x = MyClass.new
x.hello_world
So, I have a few major questions.
What is going on behind the scenes with regards to Var vs var? It appears that capitalizing a variable name is more than just a convention after all.
When includeing a module, what kinds of things are passed to the including class, and at what scope?
Is there a way to do the opposite? That is, use include to include an instance variable or a class method?
What is going on behind the scenes with regards to Var vs var? It appears that capitalizing a variable name is more than just a convention after all.
Yes, of course, it's not a convention. Variables which start with an uppercase letter are constants, variables which start with a lowercase letter are local variables. The two are completely different.
When includeing a module, what kinds of things are passed to the including class, and at what scope?
Nothing gets passed anywhere. includeing a mixin simply makes that mixin the superclass of the class you are includeing it into. That's all. Everything else then works exactly as with classes.
Is there a way to do the opposite? That is, use include to include an instance variable or a class method?
I don't understand this question. Instance variables have nothing to do with mixins or classes. They belong to instances, that's why they are called "instance" variables.
There are no such things as "class methods" in Ruby. Ruby only knows one kind of methods: instance methods. When Rubyists talk to each other, they will sometimes use the term "class method" to mean "singleton method of an object that happens to be a class", but they do that knowing full well that class methods don't actually exist, it's just a shorthand in conversation. (And, of course, singleton methods don't exist either, they are just a convenient way of saying "instance method of the singleton class".)
From the Module
Module#append_features(mod) → mod => When this module is included in another, Ruby calls append_features in this module, passing it the receiving module in mod. Ruby’s default implementation is to add the constants, methods, and module variables of this module to mod if this module has not already been added to mod or one of its ancestors.
Module#prepend_features(mod) → mod => When this module is prepended in another, Ruby calls prepend_features in this module, passing it the receiving module in mod. Ruby’s default implementation is to overlay the constants, methods, and module variables of this module to mod if this module has not already been added to mod or one of its ancestors.
Can anyone help me to understand the below questions:
What more features of Module are defined as append and prepend except those default?
How they differ functionally?
When to use append_features and when prepend_features?
what is the difference between two bold lines as above?
What features of Module are defined as append and prepend?
As specified in the text you quoted:
the constants, methods, and module variables
How they differ functionally?
Both add methods of the mixed-in module to the passed module (class). The difference is in the lookup order of these methods, in case that the target class already has them defined:
include behaves as if the target class inherited mixed-in module:
module FooBar
def say
puts "2 - Module"
end
end
class Foo
include FooBar
def say
puts "1 - Implementing Class"
super
end
end
Foo.new.say # =>
# 1 - Implementing Class
# 2 - Module
prepend makes the methods from the mixed in module "stronger" and executes them first:
module FooBar
def say
puts "2 - Module"
super
end
end
class Foo
prepend FooBar
def say
puts "1 - Implementing Class"
end
end
Foo.new.say # =>
# 2 - Module
# 1 - Implementing Class
The example kindly ripped off from here: http://blog.crowdint.com/2012/11/05/3-killer-features-that-are-coming-on-ruby-2-0.html
When to use append_features and when prepend_features?
Use prepend when you want to keep methods of the target module (class) at the end of the method lookup chain.
Some real-world examples can be found by searching SO for ruby, module and prepend:
Overriding method by another defined in module
When monkey patching a method, can you call the overridden method from the new implementation?
Ruby: Module, Mixins and Blocks confusing?
(Note: I am mentioning only methods, as they are easiest to picture when it comes to inheritance and mixing-in, but the same applies to other features.)
I thought to add it as a comment to a good answer which #Mladen Jablanovic has already made but I couldn't due to my low reputation point.
I've found a more concise, clearer and more descriptive answer on a post here - Ruby modules: Include vs Prepend vs Extend and I post it here just in case someone needs it and could get it with less effort.
Direct quotes:
Though include is the most common way of importing external code into a class, Ruby provides also two other ways to achieve that: extend and prepend. However, they don’t have the same behavior at all, and these differences are often misunderstood by Ruby developers.
To understand how to use them, we must first have a deeper look into how Ruby is resolving methods to execute at runtime, using something called the ancestors chain.
When a Ruby class is created, it holds a list of constant names which are its ancestors. They are all the classes that the class inherits from, and the modules they include. For example, by calling ancestors on the String class, we get the list of its ancestors:
String.ancestors
=> [String, Comparable, Object, PP::ObjectMixin, Kernel, BasicObject]
include is the most used and the simplest way of importing module code. When calling it in a class definition, Ruby will insert the module into the ancestors chain of the class, just after its superclass.
Available since Ruby 2, prepend is a bit less known to Rubyists than its two other friends. It actually works like include, except that instead of inserting the module between the class and its superclass in the chain, it will insert it at the bottom of the chain, even before the class itself.
I would suggest reading the post to get a better understanding as it comes with examples.
RSpec adds a "describe" method do the top-level namespace. However, instead of simply defining the method outside of any classes/modules, they do this:
# code from rspec-core/lib/rspec/core/dsl.rb
module RSpec
module Core
# Adds the `describe` method to the top-level namespace.
module DSL
def describe(*args, &example_group_block)
RSpec::Core::ExampleGroup.describe(*args, &example_group_block).register
end
end
end
end
extend RSpec::Core::DSL
Module.send(:include, RSpec::Core::DSL)
What is the benefit of using this technique as opposed to simply defining describe outside any modules and classes? (From what I can tell, the DSL module isn't used anywhere else in rspec-core.)
I made this change a few months ago so that describe is no longer added to every object in the system. If you defined it at the top level:
def describe(*args)
end
...then every object in the system would have a private describe method. RSpec does not own every object in the system and should not be adding describe willy-nilly to every object. We only want the describe method available in two scopes:
describe MyClass do
end
(at the top-level, off of the main object)
module MyModule
describe MyClass do
end
end
(off of any module, so you nest your describes in a module scope)
Putting it in a module makes it easy to extend onto the main object (to add it to only that object, and not every object) and include it in Module (to add it to all modules).
Actually, if that's all there is in the code, I don't really believe it to be much better — if at all. A common argument is that you can easily check that RSpec is responsible for addinng this method in the global namespace by checking the method owner. Somehow it never felt this was needed, as the location of the method already stores that information.
Defining the method outside of any scope would have be equivalent to defining a private instance method in Object:
class Object
private
def double(arg)
arg * 2
end
end
double(3) # OK
3.double(3) # Error: double is private
self.double(3) # Error: double is private
I think privateness is a useful aspect, because it prevents from making certain method calls that have no meaning, that the code shown in the question lacks.
There's an advantge to defining the method in a module, though, but the RSpec code doesn't seem to make use of it: using module_function, not only do you preserve privateness of the instance method, but you also get a public class method. This means that if you have an instance method of the same name, you will still be able to refer to the one defined by the module, by using the class method version.
A common example of module_function is the Kernel module, which contains most function-like core methods like puts (another one is Math). If you're in a class that redefines puts, you can still use Kernel#puts explicitly if you need:
class LikeAnIO
def puts(string)
#output << string
end
def do_work
puts "foo" # inserts "foo" in #output
Kernel.puts "foo" # inserts "foo" in $stdout
end
end